[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Adding linux_link(2) system call (Was: Re: link(2) on a symlink to a directory fails)
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:17:46AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> >> If linux_link(2) seems unreasonable, it could be lazy_link(2),
> >> weak_link(2), braindead_link(2) or whatever.
> > You'll also need to update every filesystem to allow this and update
> > all the various fsck programs to allow filesystems to be in this
> > state.
> Hardly. The most that needs to be done to "every filesystem" is to
> reject these operations. The filesystem(s) that we want to support
> hardlinks to symlinks can then be uptdated, one at a time, along with
> their fscks.
Yeah, well, it adds up to the same thing.
> > I'd disagree with this as it seems like a nonsensical thing to do.
Because symlinks are a special type of filesystem object with their
own semantics and for many purposes they're often not even directly
Also, from a more operational standpoint, because there's no way to
update a symlink in place, so there's no difference between two
symlinks and two hard links to the same symlink except confusion and
the number of inodes used.
FWIW, I just asked some linux guys about the linux behavior and the
answer was "we sell rope".
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |